AMD FX-8320 Vishera
or
AMD FX-8350 Vishera
They are a good improvement over the FX8150s. Blows away the i5s and sometimes lower i7 chips in heavily threaded applications but still has inferior single core performance vs the i5s and i7s. The difference in single core performance isn't as bad as it was with the bulldozer chips but its still a notable factor. For rendering, compression, many productivity base applications, etc etc, the chips provide an amazing performance for their relatively modest price. But for lightly threaded applications like games and browsing the web, the i5 chips still beat them out. The lower FX chips also give great value for many thing including gaming, thanks to their better single core performance and great overclock potential, they take the crown from the i3 chips in most cases for that price range.
OK just wanted to hear from you guys thanks for that
I have the 8150, and I am very impressed with it personally, Im excited for the 8350, and cannot wait to upgrade.
lolzors, newegg can't keep them in stock for more than 3 days......
I mean for gaming it's easy to want to stay with something like the 2500k or the 3570k just based on single core performance.
Lots of TERRIBLE reviews on NewEgg when it comes to the 8cores and/or Bulldozers. AM3+ doesn't even come close to gaming performance overall when compared to Sandy and Ivy Bridge. Intel all the way for gaming.
Rendering/multi-core intensive apps. That's a different story. So choose your battles. AMD might be more accessible for all the video renderers, price wize that is.
I was running an FX8150, it was a replacment for my blown 1090t. Gameing performance droped, I lost 10 to 20 fps in ArmA! Simular drops in other games were also evident. It was ArmA that was most baddly affected as it's CPU intencive and can only see up to 4 cores. 10 to 20 fps wouldn't be too much of an issue on most games but anyone that knows ArmA would feel the pain of a drop that big. 20fps is the difference between life and death when the zombies swam!
So if you´ve been playing Arma II DayZ with a Phenom II X6 1090T which is 3,2 GHz then all this game needs is a good Phenom II X4? So you´re saying that it runs better on at least Quad-Core Phenom II´s then it does on any Bulldozer or Piledriver for that matter?
So I can scratch my plans of buying an FX-6300 entirely? So I really have to stick with a Phenom II X4 965 for gaming especially Arma II and DayZ mod?
-_- I hate myself.
fx 6300, has better percore preformance then the phenom ii x6 and if your playing games like crysis 3 (uses 6 cores) the fx cpus do very well. but you should buy a fx8350 cpu if you use programs that are thread heavy like revit. and other CAD or other rendering programs
also the fx 83550@ 5ghz. (plz if you run it at this speed use nothing less than an h100) will be very closeto an i7 2700k @4.7 in Cinebench 11.5
http://i.imgur.com/zoOxn.jpg
and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6zUE-dlPfs&feature=related (skip to the end to see results)
blown 1090t.
aww
that was a killer chip
For games in general
four cores at a higher clockspeed
beats more cores
BUT.
but that logic is changing nowadays
as developers realise potatoes have more than 4 cores
the cpu architecture plays a large roll in that assumption.
On a clock for clock compair
intel chips just tend to get more work done
work cycle per work cycle
ive had amd 4 core overclocked
loose to intel 4 core stock
but of course. It really really depends on the coding and architecture.
And what task your asking of the chips
like the age old nvidia vs amd
nvidia stomps out amd in folding@home
amd dickslaps nvidia in bitcoin hashing and the like.
as the architectures just allow certain code to be run in fewer steps
This topic is now closed. New replies are no longer allowed.
Come on man, look at the date.
1 Like